Latest Castle Doctrine Shooting in SC--Sort of

This is a discussion on Latest Castle Doctrine Shooting in SC--Sort of within the Carry & Defensive Scenarios forums, part of the Defensive Carry Discussions category; Story out of Spartanburg, SC where the owners of a vacant house for sale went to check on the house after being informed that someone ...

Latest Castle Doctrine Shooting in SC--Sort of

Story out of Spartanburg, SC where the owners of a vacant house for sale went to check on the house after being informed that someone was staying in the home. Both owners were armed and the "someone" was shot in the face "during a struggle". No charges have been filed. Two things I read into this: 1) Don't fool around with or in other's houses in SC; and 2) When you are the only witness, you are the only witness.

Owner received call of someone in his property, owner and wife go to investigate find door unlocked find uninvited man in property. Ordered to not move, man reached for owners arm which had firearm, wife shot man in face. Clean cut to me, sounds like a justified shooting.

While going to investigate themselves was probably not the smartest thing to do, it sounds like a good shoot. Well's was someplace he had no place being, lunged and grabbed the homeowner's arm. Homeowners wife protected him and herself.

Story out of Spartanburg, SC where the owners of a vacant house for sale went to check on the house after being informed that someone was staying in the home. Both owners were armed and the "someone" was shot in the face "during a struggle". No charges have been filed. Two things I read into this: 1) Don't fool around with or in other's houses in SC; and 2) When you are the only witness, you are the only witness.

That might be true,but if the Crime scene doesn't match your account of what happened,and Investigators catch you in a lie,your life could get really complicated really quick

I have to hand it to the wife, she made a shot under pressure while the suspect was in physical contact with her husband. I don't know what her position was in relation to the two of them, but it sounds like it's a difficult shot. All in all it sounds like a good shoot, but there are a few questions. Was the suspect trying to get the husband to stop pointing a gun at him? (lesson here, if your trespassing and someone tells you to back off, you better back off!) Also, this WOULD be a good shoot based on castle doctrine, except, does castle doctrine apply to a house you own, but are not living in? Luckily Michigan has "no duty to retreat". If I am somewhere I can legally be than I don't have to retreat. The homeowners were definately legal to be there, but by the time everything is said and done, they may wish they had retreated, or called the police in the first place.
Hopefully there will not be any legal issues for them.

Hey dukal: Diablos beat me to my comment to you. As much as you want to be a good citizen, the police are now there to investigate and not help you. You shut up.
Hey Ted: From what I read in SC law, the only "occupied" restriction on a shoot is for a car (ie car jacking etal). As you say for Michigan, the do not retreat is part of SC law. There is a presumption that if you have unlawfully and by force (I assume the house was locked) attempt to enter a person's dwelling (nothing about living there--just owning) there is a presumption of intent to commit an unlawful act and you can act accordingly (Castle Doctrine). Sounds to me like a good shoot.

I can see where this could get legally ugly. I'm going to play Devil's Advocate here for a moment.

You armed yourself (pre-meditation) to investigate reports of someone in an empty house (even though you have have title to such), knowing that person may still be inside. You approached (initiated contact) an unknown person who may or may not be aggressive. Spouse pulls a gun on the guy and he attempts to defend/disarm. You shoot someone for his grabbing spouse's arm in his self defense (No mention of any weapon exhibited by the homeless guy).

Not sure if I see a lethal threat here, and I'm not passing judgement on the couple, but I can see where a DA looking to make a name for himself could have a field day on this. It's not difficult to turn the table completely around on this one. "Vigilanties shoot homeless man seeking shelter!"

The best (and probably smartest) response would have been to call 911 and report a possible break-in at **** and then let the LEOs take the risks. Isn't that what the LEOs are for? Now a man has been shot, an investigation is under way, a woman may or may not be in legal trouble, and all of this could have been avoided with one phone call. Hopefull this works out in her favor.

Retired USAF E-8. Curmudgeon at large.Lighten up and enjoy life because:Paranoia strikes deep, into your life it will creep. It starts when you're always afraid... Buffalo Springfield - For What It's Worth

I have to hand it to the wife, she made a shot under pressure while the suspect was in physical contact with her husband. I don't know what her position was in relation to the two of them, but it sounds like it's a difficult shot. All in all it sounds like a good shoot, but there are a few questions. Was the suspect trying to get the husband to stop pointing a gun at him? (lesson here, if your trespassing and someone tells you to back off, you better back off!) Also, this WOULD be a good shoot based on castle doctrine, except, does castle doctrine apply to a house you own, but are not living in? Luckily Michigan has "no duty to retreat". If I am somewhere I can legally be than I don't have to retreat. The homeowners were definately legal to be there, but by the time everything is said and done, they may wish they had retreated, or called the police in the first place.
Hopefully there will not be any legal issues for them.

The catle doctrine in SC applies anywhere you have a legal right to be (not trespassing).

The catle doctrine in SC applies anywhere you have a legal right to be (not trespassing).

May be legal but real stupid. It was a VACANT house. Let the law handle it. I wouldn't want to lose a single nights sleep over some bum caught in one of my vacant rentals. Let the local PD take care of it....it's not like the guys gonna steal the house.

Hey Old Vet and Rotor: We are talking SC here, where you do not screw around with anything you do not own. Yes I agree there are better ways to deal with a situation such as the one that prompted this thread. The police could easily have handled this situation for a better and safer outcome. Having said that, it is more than probable that if someone forces themselves into your house, whether you are there or not (vacant or not), there is a presumption of an illegal act and the presumption of reasonable fear of imminent peril of death or great bodily injury once you enter your house, have no lawful reason to retreat, and confront that person; with that presumption comes the ability to use deadly force. As I said, you do not screw around with other people's property in SC.